Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Romm v Revkin

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins
and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing.

Joe Romm and Andy Revkin often clash over this or that, with the more measured Revkin coming out on top in most cases, in my view. This one, though, goes to Romm by a knockout:

First off, if one act of this nature could ruin a reputation or destroy
his credibility, then what precisely is Revkin doing routinely quoting
and citing people who have been repeatedly debunked, the disinformers
and confusionists.

I think those of us on the pro-science side accept a little bit of a double standard, but not when it's taken to a ridiculous, hyperventilating extreme. A little trickery to expose Heartland's illegal war on science? That "leaves his reputation in ruins"? Why, if it didn't involve his scientific work? Are we under the impression that all scientists are impeccably honest and forthright in all their personal and public affairs? And if they've ever breathed a word that wasn't true, told a girl she looked pretty when she didn't, promised a parent to call and didn't, parked in a loading zone -- that's it. No more reputation for you!

C'mon. Am I the only one who thinks Revkin calls it "an act" because to actually describe it would make it abundantly clear that it is an "ethical lapse" in the same way driving five miles over the speed limit is a "criminal act"?

I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed.

As I noted the last time I blogged on Revkin, he has an impressive ability to respond to new information, and his second and third looks are the best in the business.

I'd move towards Revkin on this one a little bit, too. I don't think Peter Gleick's scientific credibility ought to be affected by his deception of the Heartland Institute. His credibility as an authority on ethics, however, might reasonably be expected to take a hit. Especially given that he, himself considers what he did a serious ethical lapse. I don't necessarily agree, but he's the expert.

Apparently the aptly named "papertiger" has mistaken us for persons sharing something akin to his own intolerant fundamentalism.

Grown-ups can disagree with others without joining "battle" with them or launching a crusade . . . you also might want to learn the difference between one article by one journalist blogger and an entire media group comprised of thousands of individual views..

Steve Bloom - I'm sure you are curious who wrote the fake document, slipped it under the door, and started Gleick down the path to crime. Right?

In the meanwhile the San Francisco Chronicle has joined the ranks of those people who are "concerned with narrative over facts", giving Gleick the boot off of their blog City Brights.Time Magazine has weighed in saying "...[Gleick's] actions have hurt not just his own professional reputation but the cause of climate science as well."

And not to be left out Gavin Schmidt (Josh, didn't you co-ordinate with Gavin before shooting off your mouth?)Gavin Schmidt says, "Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test."

Secondly, there is scant evidence that Gleick forged the strategy memo, and in any case all the details were corroborated by the rest of the leaked documents.

Thirdly, you seem to lack a sense of moral proportion that is shared by reasonable human beings. Let's compare the crimes:

Gleick: decided to leak confidential Heartland materials to journalists after receiving them unsolicited from an unknown source. Used identity theft to corroborate the source's reliability.

Heartland Institute: routinely rails against scientists with libel and slander (milking hacked emails, of all things), engaged in a campaign to deceive schoolchildren, pays people to obfuscate the public, falsely claims charitable status to evade taxes while actually functioning as an industry lobby group.

Clearly, the big story is not about Heartland at all, but how Gleick is a big stupid meanie doo-doo head